Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive240

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:‎MiG29VN reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Massacre at Huế (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎MiG29VN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]


Comments:
To be fair, all of the "discussion" has been in edit summaries and to a lesser extent on my user talk page, but I still think ‎MiG29VN's disruptive behavior warrants scrutiny. Within a less than 24-hour period (17:23 22 March to 14:30 23 March), he has racked up four reverts, after four dissenting editors (myself included) reverted him once each. Since ‎MiG29VN has been warned for edit warring in the past, and appears to be using multiple IPs to advance his agenda, his failure to adhere to WP:BRD and his violation of the three-revert rule is unfortunate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Ladislav Mecir reported by User:Aoidh (Result: )[edit]

Page: Bitcoin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [7]
  2. [8]
  3. [9]

Also evidence of long term edit-warring

  1. [10]
  2. [11]
  3. [12]
  4. [13]
  1. [14]
  2. [15]
  3. [16]
  4. [17]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18][19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bitcoin#ponzi scheme content change and other discussions on the talk page

Comments:
This is not a 3RR report but a general edit-warring report for continued edit-warring (however, 3 reverts within an hour, though short of 3RR, is still problematic). Ladislav Mecir is a SPA with a focus on the Bitcoin article and has a persistent habit of pushing his edits with the explanation that they "were discussed" when discussion is still ongoing[20] (and often with most others disagreeing with them), and alluding to others agreeing with him when nothing like that has taken place on the talk page. Editor seems to believe that they can decide that the discussion is "over" and that if nobody comments within some arbitrary time-frame, it is "approved" and cannot be reverted despite objections to the edit on the talk page (which are ignored). Editor also has a habit of making an edit and when it's reverted, waiting a day or two and making the same exact edit[21][22][23] and insisting that when they are discussing the edit that it remain in the article.[24][25] - Aoidh (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


User:Walter Görlitz and User:Jaellee reported by User:Mishae (Result: Mishae warned)[edit]

Enough. WP:ANI is stage left.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

According to a policy a user is allowed to edit the article the consensus way, and that's what I was doing by adding archiveurl and with it removing whitespace as a part of a big edit. It doesn't suppose to cause trouble since most of the editors do combine their actual edits with small ones, and I was following as I was told. Then on the 23 of March when I edited Mehmet Ekici page, by doing the same thing, user Walter Görlitz came in and restored the white space without adding anything. According to my previous experience, adding and/or removing whitespace is considered to be disruptive and therefore should be treated as such. So, I reverted his edit stating the reason. He restored it back stating that it wasn't disruptive. Mean time we discussed it on his and my talkpages at the same time and then I revert it again saying that according to the news protocol which link I can't find yet the article suppose to stay as is till I find it. But no, he goes in and restores the god forsaken spaces]. I go in and reverted his edit again and state the same, in a bit concise way reason]. Then he goes in for white space again] and sends me this for another article that I edited Michael Ballack where I too removed whitespaces along with archiving. Can someone solve this, because, from my perspective I see their edits as disruptive. P.S. I have notified the editors and here are the diffs as you demanded:

As a side note, I will invite @Koavf: who will monitor the situation, if there is no objection to it.--Mishae (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
May I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG The editor in question has broken 3RR in at least one article, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Was warned about it here and then made another edit to the article, a minor one, here.
Community consensus is that the whitespace stay in place. At least three editors, two of which are being reported here, and Jared Preston (talk · contribs) as seen here, have tried to indicate that the whitespace is useful for editing. While the adding or removing of whitespace is not disruptive, in my mind, edit warring over the removal of it against consensus is.
And from a purely theological standpoint, God has forsaken no space, not even hell, so the spaces on Wikipedia are not forsaken either. I point you to the writings of Greg Boyd, Rob Bell and others to support that case in countering Mishae's statement that there is such a thing as "god forsaken spaces". Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Mishae, this is a formal warning to stop reverting at Michael Ballack and at Mehmet Ekici. I don't know what the "community consensus" is that Walter Görlitz refers to, and I don't much care. Your editing is disruptive. To some extent, Walters and Jaellee's edits are also disruptive, but at this point, you have to obtain a clear consensus for your stylistic edits, either on the talk page or some other dispute resolution forum. For someone with the number of edits you have and the insistence that you are right when it comes to a matter of style, why do you have such a hard time following instructions on this page? Your first report was rejected as malformed, and this one isn't much better. In addition, you mis-notified both editors (don't know how Walter found his way here). You told them both that there was a discussion at WP:AN in a section called ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Excuse me, so its my archiving with whitespace removal that is disruptive? You should clean your classes man. Look at it this way, for instance, you go in and do archiving combining with whitespace removal, someone edits it and puts it back in. How is his not bold edit (inserting whitespace) is not disruptive while my archiving with it is??? Archiving, mind you, is bolder then his whitespace insertion. And if you don't care about consensus then I should not care about your warnings either. Maybe you will propose to fuck consensus instead? Like what kind of dispute resolutionist are you? I know that you shouldn't be on any of our sides but its ridiculous how you look at it. As a side note, I have autism and that's why my report is so awkward, and your comment was pretty much insulting to me regarding my hard time of following. Put yourself in my shoes.--Mishae (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
      • You should take heed of my warning because, like it or not, if you persist, you risk being blocked without notice. I do care about consensus as my subsequent remarks made clear. I just don't know what "community consensus" there is, and the "I don't much care" meant it didn't figure into my actions, not that I don't care about consensus (sorry if that was ambiguous). I can't insult you if I'm unaware of your autism, and, frankly, although I sympathize with impairments that make it harder for you to edit here, I have to look at the project, not your personal issues. Finally, it hasn't stopped you from compiling over 60,000 edits to Wikipedia. You are the one bringing the complaint. It's your responsibility to do it right. If you can't, then don't bring it. It's not fair to other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
        • No, if I brought a complaint its their responsibility to do it right, I am not the one goes and inserts whitespaces everywhere. I do understand that Wikipedia is not therapy but at the same time I was looking for fair resolution not blocking threat. I also understand that Wikipedia is hostile to people with disabilities because some users throw in Wikipedia is not Therapy thing and that's it.
          • @Walter Görlitz: Now, I understand your humour but please understand that God for saken it's a figure of speech and I am sorry if you take it so offensively. I personally don't care about your theological aspect, although smart but it sounded rather strange how you don't know that its a figure of speech. Have no offence on your faith, continue worshiping Jimmy Wales (I personally don't). Face-smile.svg--Mishae (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Now editor has started to violate WP:OVERLINK at Oliver Kahn just for the fun of it. Time for a block as the warning, which I don't see on the editor's talk page, has had no effect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not doing it for the fun of it, your edits are disruptive! User user:Bbb23 should block you instead.--Mishae (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
So edits that follow a guideline, in the case of the Oliver Kahn article WP:OVERLINK, is disruptive? Please elaborate.
The warning to Mishae is only here not on the subject's talk page. I see that now: "this is a formal warning to stop reverting ...". Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I see. You thought you were reverting like this. Well that makes much more sense now. Can we get a block for Mishae now please? The editor's actions clearly violate the spirit of the warning above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
O.K. I ment the other edit which I undone as well because it only containing spacing which was disruptive and I am surprised why no one takes a note of it. Why its my fault, when it suppose to be yours! Now, can we get a block for Walter too?--Mishae (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
In fact I wont cooperate on a block until Walter will be blocked too, I like fairness.--Mishae (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. You're both driving me crazy. I'm not blocking Mishae for his conduct on another page (not the ones I warned him about). And I'm not blocking either of you for edit warring over WP:OVERLINK, although, at this point, I should probably block both of you. If either of you wants to take the other to WP:ANI, that's your prerogative, but there's been enough drama on this noticeboard for today. No more comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:201.215.252.50 reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Motifs in the James Bond film series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 201.215.252.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [27]
  2. [28]
  3. [29]
  4. [30]
  5. [31]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]


Comments:
IP was asked to use the talk page to discuss, as per BRD, but carried on reverting material supported by citations; they were warned after the fourth revert, but proceeded to the fifth anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Update
  • Twice. This is becoming intolerable. - SchroCat (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thrice. - SchroCat (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Four times... - SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Five times. I've given up putting my comment in there: the warring and associated abuse just isn't worth the hassle with this editor. - SchroCat (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • now six, after a kindly (and independent neutral) soul replaced my comment. - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

A false accusation of vandalism does not count as an attempt to resolve a dispute. Someone should explain that to User:SchroCat. Also removing section headings when I attempted to discuss matters on the talk page is pathetically immature. Follow the links helpfully posted by User:SchroCat and you can see what kind of person I'm dealing with here. 201.215.252.50 (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Its the same topic for which a thread has been opened. The second section heading on the same topic is not needed: neither are the insults, so please stop with the latter, and put back my comments on the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked 48 hours. → Call me Hahc21 23:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Jdogno5 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Indefinite block)[edit]

Page: Space Jam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jdogno5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts (March 18–20):

  1. [34]
  2. [35]
  3. [36]
  4. [37]
  5. [38]
  6. [39]
  7. [40]

Editor was blocked for 31 hours by User:Nikkimaria: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts (March 21):

  1. [42]
  2. [43]

Editor was blocked for 60 hours by User:Crisco 1492: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts (March 24):

  1. [45]

Disruptive editing on the article talk page:

  1. [46]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48] and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Content change and trivia addition over at Space Jam

Comments:

This is the third spate of warring after two blocks. I think a lengthy block is required this time. The issues have been highlighted on the talk page and the sensible thing to do would have been to work through them and supply the requested sourcing, and there isn't much any of can do if he simply refuses to co-operate. Betty Logan (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked.—Kww(talk) 04:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Woleez reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: )[edit]

Page
Abdus Salam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Woleez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Previous version
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 13:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "huge difference between non-muslim and not-muslim, constitution say not-muslim, so read it by your self. then undo my edit. http://www.thepersecution.org/archive/ordxx.html"
  3. 12:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Dr salam had contributed towards initial project development of atomic project, I known it for sure. so don't try to undo it."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Abdus Salam. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

It is an edit warring report not a 3RR. SMS Talk 13:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Filucz2004 reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Shakira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Filucz2004 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


User continues to edit-war over edits to the Shakira article, and giving little to no reason or explanation for why, other than that the edits are "repulsive". User was previously blocked for edit-warring, and when I tried speaking to said user, they ignored my talk page comments and continued on editing. Two other editors also tried communicating with said-user, and ignored them as well. He also called the edits "untrue", but all that was reverted was the infobox and how the date of birth was represented. Neither edit was untrue. User also changed simple changes to how the references were appeared, with "30em", which is what is most accustomed used in articles now. User is obviously only here for self agenda is appears and will continue their edits until they've been blocked once more. And given a look at their talkpage, a severe case of disruptive editing is at hand. livelikemusic my talk page! 12:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [49] (User explanation: Revert, totally untrue.)
  2. [50] (User explanation: STOP!!!!!)
  3. [51] (User explanation: UNTRUE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!)
  4. [52] (User explanation: THIS IS REPULSIVE EDITION)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. [53] XXSNUGGUMSXX tried asking why they've been making their edits, with no response.
  2. [54] IPadPerson tried once again contacting user, with no response.
  3. [55] I tried contacting user, with no response.

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation There is a slow-moving edit war there, but no violation of 3RR exists. Remember that at least *four* reverts must be done in no more than 24 hours, which is not the case here. However, if you continue, it is likely for any of you to end up blocked. → Call me Hahc21 14:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:210.211.110.236 reported by User:BethNaught (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
G8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
210.211.110.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 18:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 18:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC) ""
  4. 18:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on G8. (TW)"
  2. 18:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on G8. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

IP repeatedly adding POV comments/personal analysis. I notified them about both NPOV and 3RR on their talk page (diffs included). BethNaught (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

IP has continued to perform reverts restoring the inappropriate content after my warning and and notifying them of this report. BethNaught (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Elockid (Talk) 19:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Arderich reported by User:NeoBatfreak (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Carrie (2013 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arderich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_(2013_film)&oldid=601063427
  2. [diff]
  3. [diff]
  4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Elockid (Talk) 19:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


User:Intuitive2000 reported by User:Randykitty (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Pattern Recognition in Physics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Intuitive2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 12:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC) to 12:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
    1. 12:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601018969 by 41.106.3.43 (talk)"
    2. 12:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601014447 by William M. Connolley (talk)"
    3. 12:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600996239 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
    4. 12:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600996199 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
    5. 12:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600996098 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
    6. 12:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600987011 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
    7. 12:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600986899 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
    8. 12:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600986661 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
  2. 12:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "TheRedPenOfDoom is abusing and disrupting this entry by deleting entries necessary for understanding the full story:"
  3. 15:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601046086 by Randykitty: The original content has been restored. There are several attempts of censoring information necessary to understand the full story. Argue your argument instead of deleting"
  4. 16:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601049755 by TheRedPenOfDoom Dear TheRedPenOfDoom, do not delete just because you do not like the full story. Add contents if you have it"
  5. 17:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601056121 by Randykitty Do not delete. You are censoring. Argue your arguments in the talk page."
  6. 17:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601057248 by Randykitty Do not be boring. There is a discussion."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. First warning
  2. Second warning
  3. and another warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 16:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "/* We are not Ouadfeul mouthpiece */ agree"
Comments:

Several editors disagree with this one editor on the article talk page. Editor has now full scale reverted at least five times, after clear warnings on their talk page. Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Elockid (Talk) 19:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Amensnober91 reported by User:Greyshark09 (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

Page: Template:Syrian civil war detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amensnober91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts (1RR per WP:SCWGS):

  1. 24/03 08:02 revert
  2. 24/03 01:39 revert
  3. 23/03 18:31 revert

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: 06/03 warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (i'm not an involved party)

Comments:
user:Amensnober91 is among several users engaged on an all-out edit-warring on the described article, which is sanctioned for 1RR.GreyShark (dibra) 19:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked 72 hours, given that he was previosuly blocked this very same month for 48 hours. GreyShark: please keep and eye on it and let me know at my talk page if, after the block expires, he come sback and violates 1RR again. → Call me Hahc21 21:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@Hahc21: please record the block at Wikipedia:SCWGS#List of blocks and bans.GreyShark (dibra) 22:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. → Call me Hahc21 22:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:87.161.204.120 reported by User:TheIrishWarden (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Winx Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
87.161.204.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winx_Club&diff=601098411&oldid=601098263 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winx_Club&diff=601094709&oldid=601085441

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Winx Club. (TW)"
  2. 21:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Threatening users about being blocked */ new section"
  3. 21:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "/* March 2014 */"
  4. 21:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Wings (Pike novel). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Continually edit warring with another IP and threatening to block the other IP. This IP has persistently ignored warnings and branded them as me threatening them Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud 22:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked for 60 hours. → Call me Hahc21 22:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Daki122 reported by User:Greyshark09 (Result: No action taken)[edit]

Page: Template:Syrian civil war detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Daki122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts (1RR per WP:SCWGS):

  1. 22/03 16:56
  2. 23/03 13:54

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: blocked on 23 November 2013 for edit-warring at this same page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (i'm not an involved party)

Comments:
Among several users engaged on an all-out edit-warring on the described article, which is sanctioned for 1RR.GreyShark (dibra) 19:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked. I'm going to give Daki122 the benefit of the doubt since the edits did occur on different days although they were 21 hours apart, and because Daki122 wasn't notified of this discussion. That particular edit seems to have gone back and forth quite a bit among other editors as well. I'm minded to fully protect the talk page for a while, although several of the reverts I see in the history are self-reverts.
I will leave a warning on the user's talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, my mistake for not notifying him - i had been distracted right in the middle of it.GreyShark (dibra) 22:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
@Amatulic: please record the warning at Wikipedia:SCWGS#Log of notifications.GreyShark (dibra) 22:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about this I did not see the hours on the reverts as I did revert in two different days so I did not notice that 24 hours did not pass.I did not notice that I eve broke the rule as I thought a day(24 hours) had passed since my last edit.Thanks for the heads up I will try to be more careful next times.Daki122 (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Elmech and sockpuppets reported by User:Smyth (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: Roosh V (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

and sockpuppets;

Previous version reverted to: [56]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [57] 00:17, 25 March 2014
  2. [58] 11:06, 25 March 2014
  3. [59] 13:51, 25 March 2014‎
  4. [60] 00:18, 26 March 2014‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61][62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The user has been invited to the talk page on numerous occasions [63][64][65], but their one and only edit to an article talk page so far has been to delete the discussion they were invited to join and insert a forged comment from another user to make them appear biased. [66]

My report on this user here on AN/I has received little attention. This is the first time they have broken the 3RR, but they have been reverting the article to their preferred version at least once every few days for more than a month now. This needs some serious admin attention, as they are holding the article hostage and ignoring all attempts at discussion. – Smyth\talk 01:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Seconding Smyth's report. User is WP:NOTHERE and a single purpose account. Requesting strong action. Thought they were a sock but apparently were not blocked for it. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week If the consensus at any is to modify the block, then it will be handled there. Elockid (Talk) 03:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Connor2278 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page
Ed Manion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Connor2278 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601286406 by Flat Out (talk)"
  2. 01:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601280773 by Flat Out (talk)"
  3. 00:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC) ""
  4. 00:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Ed Manion. (TW)"
  2. 01:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ed Manion. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 01:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Copyright problem removed */ seek consensus"
Comments:
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected It seems that per the result of the last report, both users were warned of edit warring. Instead of issuing blocks, I have decided to protect the page instead. I did however block Arizona3876 (talk · contribs) and Bodiddle1963 (talk · contribs). I have also warned Connor2278 about our policy on multiple accounts. Elockid (Talk) 02:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) would you consider reverting to the previous version given that I have sought consensus at article's talk page? Flat Out let's discuss it 03:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the practice on the wrong version prevents me from doing so. It doesn't seem like there's consensus on the talk page yet, so I don't feel comfortable making any changes at this time. If however, a consensus is reached, I will be happy to assist. Elockid (Talk) 03:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:XXX8906 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
List of video games notable for negative reception (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
XXX8906 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 11:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC) to 11:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    1. 11:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 601108918 by ViperSnake151 (talk): Seems acceptable to me. (TW)"
    2. 11:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601108918 by ViperSnake151 (talk)Nothing wrong with having a large amount of content."
  2. 21:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Werieth (talk): non-free use rationale's have now been added for the files. (TW)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

He is placing in-depth content, copied from other pages, on a page that has always been written in a summary style. There is no consensus for these changes. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation There hasn't been a violation of 3RR. At most XXX8906 reverted three times. But, the consecutive reverts given can be treated as a whole or single revert. I can only really see two reverts on XXX8906's part. I don't see how this would be considered edit warring either. Elockid (Talk) 03:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:39.32.206.224 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
Total Siyapaa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
39.32.206.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "See the talk page topic discussion <Box info>"
  2. 14:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to last edit by Finexfeather <Even if 8 crore budget figure from 13 sources is being claimed from low quality sources still it is better then 18 crore un cited figure may be typo error of 1)"
  3. 02:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "Even if 8 crore budget figure from 12 sources is being claimed from low quality sources still it is better then 18 crore un cited figure"
  4. 15:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Cited 12 sources and Corrected. wt sock?"
  5. 15:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Reason ?"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Total Siyapaa. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 15:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Infobox budget figures discussion */ Cmt"
Comments:

This is likely an IP sock of LanguageXpert, who has been all over this article like a rash with multiple socks. I requested PP yesterday, but it appears there are a backlog over there. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Tabrisius reported by User:Tachfin (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Royal Moroccan Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Tabrisius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 09:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "removing vandalism..."
  2. 13:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "The Moroccan army has existed continuously since the 11th-century (removing vandalism)"
  3. 15:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "ok...done.."
  4. 16:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "Vandalism...next time you edit i'll contact a mod. YOU CAN'T"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 14:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Tabrisius */ new section"
Comments:

User is in violation of 3RR, refuses to resolve the conflict on talk, and keeps reverting edit which is clearly good faith with the edit summary "vandalism". The user in question is also threatening me on the talk page quote: "Next time you edit i'll contact somebody to make you respect a bit others work" Tachfin (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. Though Tabrisius has been doing a lot of work to improve the article, he broke 3RR on 25 March per the diffs above. He has made incorrect charges of vandalism plus an AIV report. Notice the intemperate attacks at Talk:Royal Moroccan Army#Tabrisius. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Marchoctober reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Bhakta Prahlada (1931 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Marchoctober (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

When there is strong evidence to prove that Bhakta Prahlada was released in 1932, he mocks it and supports much older sources which erroneously state 1931 (due to an old belief which he still follows). He has been edit warring against multiple experienced editors who support 1932. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you please see the talk page here: Talk:Bhakta_Prahlada_(1931_film), the above user has been trying to edit the article in a biased manner suitable to him, the talk page even had and administrator who concluded that the name change had no consensus and that the same name be continued, now this user reports me as edit warring though I had not indulged in any edit warring as reported by this user, I have provided all the possible sources and also provided an amicable solution of presenting the same information on the article which the above user presented and without deleting the present information which has overwhelming sources unlike this user's version, the talk page has all the information, in order to get his way on the article this user seem to be reporting me as edit warring, but in good faith I will assume, he misunderstood me and reported me as edit warring here. Marchoctober (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation There hasn't been any reverts since last year. Elockid (Talk) 03:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Elockid, I want you to see the this for more information. While everyone in the discussions support 1932 based on the authentic sources, he alone does not. To make himself a winner, he always has something to say in rebuttal against other users with valid statements. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
That still doesn't warrant any action. This is common during arguments/discussions. To be sanctioned for edit warring he/she must perform multiple reverts against multiple revert or to be sanctioned for 3RR, he/she must perform more than three reverts during a 24 hour period. Simply opposing others' views doesn't qualify for sanctions under policy. If however, they decide to act disruptive by either using personal attacks (I don't see that in the discussion) or start to keep on reverting others, then they may be sanctioned. Elockid (Talk)

User:Spec235 reported by User:Widr (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Cesar Rene Arce (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Spec235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 08:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601317295 by Materialscientist (talk)"
  2. 08:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601322342 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
  3. 08:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601322992 by Materialscientist (talk)"
  4. 09:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "https://www.facebook.com/todd.chandler.16121?fref=pb&hc_location=friends_tab here is your source and here is another source http://www.intagme.com/chosenforkrime/ i have pics my email is spec235@gmail.com he died for his art..get it right.."
  5. 11:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601332919 by Widr (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Oglesruins reported by User:Tarlneustaedter (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oglesruins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [68] (HAHAHA!, read the reference, or will stay exhibited and in ridiculous, ;))
  2. [69] (what it says the user AbelM7 is true, I also saw him writing as well in an spanish encyclopedia, thus it is also known, why one has to stay well and smack you, that you are not God, and that is not going to blindly obey whatever you say, ;))
  3. [70] (Spend the link to me of the hindering one " quite solid consensus ", apart, I am not a domestic animal in order that they are treating me that way (another user))
  4. [71] (You cannot act without arguments)
  5. [72] (here's your reference, clow...)
  6. [73] (I compose the article nothing more to be able to put that I do not agree with this, but they are forcing theirs that makes it like that...)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No response from user, the following section is discussion by other editors who have also reverted him. [75]

Comments:
The original bad edit was removing "de facto" description of Spanish as national language. Later reversions have included reverting earlier bad edits from other editors - re-adding the incorrect back-translation "Estados Unidos de Mexico", which had been resolved with a different editor, AbelM7.

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Md iet reported by User:Summichum (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page
Mufaddal Saifuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Md iet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. Consecutive edits made from 04:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC) to 04:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
    1. 04:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 04:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Nass of 1388 AH/1969 AD (made public in 1432 AH){{http://www.badremuneer.in/62%20Reasons/53%20Reasons%20NOT.htm, Reason #34: Doubt Cannot Undermine Conviction (website of registered international Dawoodi Bohra Magazine)}} */"
    3. 04:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Nass of 1388 AH/1969 AD (made public in 1432 AH) */"
  3. 06:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Nass of 1388 AH/1969 AD (made public in 1432 AH) */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The user has been given warnings in the past to not add biased primary blog sources as references to take side of one claimant Summichum (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Summichum after being released from blocked status immediately started blanking out the edit painstakingly done by me and fellow editors, and started imposing his view again. Same reason for which he was blocked before.I feel his conduct highly unethical and propose to block him instead.Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

We are surprised that a single person joined the Wiki for a specific purpose, intentionally want to impose his partisan views. We have differences on 'Claimant' issue, and the matter is under discussion at talk page. All the relevant reports on subjects are placed in best NPOV. The encyclopedic reports on the page of main subjects are included on individual's page and controversial points are also covered in brief with due references. Summichum seems adamant to take side of one and already blocked once for his activity and now blaming other editors. We know the real in depth facts and would make all sincere efforts to keep the Wiki principles above all. Dear Summichum, please restrain yourself, don't worry truth will prevail and only fare material will have space here.--Md iet (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for one month, but be warned, if there is a next time I'll be blocking people. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Mufaddalqn reported by User:Summichum (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page
Mufaddal Saifuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Mufaddalqn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601314011 by Summichum (talk) Please stop your disrupting edition and war edits"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 11:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC) to 11:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
    1. 11:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "Restructured the Article so as to make it more readable."
    2. 11:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Nass of 1388 AH/1969 AD (made public in 1432 AH) */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 07:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Mufaddal_Saifuddin. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This is a long standing dispute the user has been warned several times yet persists in adding personal blog sources for his claims Summichum (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can see from my talk page the user has given me final warning Just 2 minutes before citing my name in edit-war notice board, further he has given me notice in response to my being giving him notice.pathetic.Mufaddalqn (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This User Summichum is citing difference from two different articles and further he himself was engaging in war edits. You can clearly see from his history and talk pages. I had been given him warnings for his disruptive edits and not citing him to the Noticeboard as a courtesy, because he was already blocked twice before. I leave to the Judgement of Admin that he is right in requesting to block me and it should not be vice versa. Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Obviously not a 3RR, but a content dispute running for a couple of months now. I have suggested on the article talk page that the entrenched parties start by taking the question regarding use of primary sources to RSN to get input. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 08:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Sam Sailor Anup Mehra Thanks I really request your interventions . The two users are posting Original research as done in their own blogs as evidences for their claims. My main contention is that users should not take side of any claimant and not add statements like "nass was granted on XYZ" as the succession \nass is extremely disputed and in such a case we can only rely on third party published sources from authoritative sites like huffingtonpost, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talkcontribs) 08:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If huffintonpost is reliable the more so is times of india. The Admin can find this himself. this should be discussed in talk pages not here.Mufaddalqn (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

We are surprised that a single person joined the Wiki for a specific purpose, intentionally want to impose his partisan views. We have differences on 'Claimant' issue, and the matter is under discussion at talk page. All the relevant reports on subjects are placed in best NPOV. The encyclopedic reports on the page of main subjects are included on individual's page and controversial points are also covered in brief with due references. Summichum seems adamant to take side of one and already blocked once for his activity and now blaming other editors. We know the real in depth facts and would make all sincere efforts to keep the Wiki principles above all. Dear Summichum, please restrain yourself, don't worry truth will prevail and only fare material will have space here.


Only third party published sources have been included now and reports as published by them are quoted for specific points mentioned regarding Nass. If Huffingtonpost is reporting on the material from one self_published_site and being included then TOI, Outlook, Badre Muneer etc. are registered and authorative sites having huge international circulation and material covered by them have same importance in Wiki.--Md iet (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for one month, but be warned, if there is a next time I'll be blocking people. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Heritoctavus reported by User:NeilN (Result:user blocked )[edit]

Page
Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Heritoctavus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 06:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Controversies */"
  2. 06:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Controversies */"
  3. 14:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Recovering from unjustified reverting by Nein : see talk page"
  4. 19:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "modified as per the discussion in the talk page"
  5. 20:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "recover from illegitimate sectional blanking of twinkle twinkle NeilN"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. using TW"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 12:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "/* New York Times */"
  2. 14:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "/* New York Times */"
  3. 19:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "/* New York Times */"
  4. 19:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "/* New York Times */ Fixing style/layout errors"
  5. 20:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Public's opinions */"
Comments:

Editor recently blocked for edit warring. Posts on article talk page indicate disruption intentions [77] NeilN talk to me 20:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

And now an "only warning" for vandalism to me [78]. --NeilN talk to me 20:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely, not just for the edit warring but for general disruptive editing and belligerent attitude. Basalisk inspect damageberate 20:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:111.125.201.50 reported by User:Elassint (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page